user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : Teach them the faults of everyone or no one, it is wrong to only teach the faults of one side
If you're going to rip on one side you ought to show the faults of the other as well. The pilgrims were flawed, the natives were flawed, to portray one honestly and the other in a fake, idealized, disneyesque manner is a form of bias.
It seems that very often these days many liberals attempt to correct historical biases that present an inaccurate, pro-american version of history by replacing it with an inaccurate, anti-american version of history.
yes. tell it like it is -- when they're old enough to understand. there is a way to teach kids the "truth" without traumatizing them -- it's a sanitized truth. they don't need to hear the cold hard reality until they're in 7th grade.
let kids be kids and get all excited and happy at the holiday's. kids grow up fast enough as it is and don't need to be taught the "dark side" of anything until they're old enough to process it.
i'm divided on this in the sense of this whole notion of the dark side of the native americans vs. the white pilgrims. lets be honest here -- it was the pilgrims that began a planned genocide. like it or not, it's historical fact.
"it was the pilgrims that began a planned genocide. like it or not, it's historical fact."
Of course. I was simply saying that the image presented by most teachers of the natives is that of an ideal, peaceful life, living with nature not against it, blah blah blah.
And that is just as inaccurate as portraying the pilgrims as peaceful settlers who merely befriended the natives.
"...it was the pilgrims that began a planned genocide. like it or not, it's historical fact."
Kev, what are you talking about? There were only about a hundred men, women and children (not soldiers) on the Mayflower and half of them died in the first winter. What kind of genocide could they have committed?
Voted : Teach them the faults of everyone or no one, it is wrong to only teach the faults of one side
I'm surprised that this guy still has his job.
^Bostonian: I don't think he meant the pilgrims per se, just the european settlers in general.
Well, I don't agree with his method, but teaching accurately is important. People have long been taught that the Pilgrims were innocent and pure like angels. In reality, they were more than a little off the deep end in their beliefs and actions. Very little attention is paid to their (and others) views of Native Americans as being savages. This view being based solely on their preconceived biases. It was the wonderful Christian puritans taming the savages. Wasn't that what happened in the Americas?
Fiddle: I agree that teaching an idealized version of the pilgrims is wrong, but so is teaching an idealized version of the natives.
Neither were flawless.
Voted : Teach them the faults of everyone or no one, it is wrong to only teach the faults of one side
I agree with most of what you say.
I think the truths should be taught.
right now, little kids don't know that settlers murder rape and kill the indians, and I think there should be some awareness of both sides.
Perhaps a lesson in human nature is the best way of going about things.
by LCD on Tue Nov 21, 06 5:49pm
[+]
bostonian, are you serious? you're thinking of this as strictly about the mayflower? you have got to be kidding. do you know history? back to the books for you champ.
since bostonian can't read either, i call his attention to the ballot topic outlined by herzog. talk to me when you have some idea what you're talking about bostonian. until then, find a ballot more in line with your intelligence. there's one on playdough that you should be able to handle. 
Kev, get with the program. Everyone here except you is referring to the Pilgrims and Native Americans of the early 1620s, not the genocide that took place later as the colonies expanded westward.
bostonian, there were colonists in america long before the pilgrims came to new england in 1620. the term pilgrim is used to describe the puritan separatists who had been driven from england and had settled in holland. pilgrim is just a word used those 102 puritan sepratists on the mayflower. they were in fact, colonists with the goal of colonizing the new world. the word colonize means to migrate and settle in.
in fact colonies were already in place or attempted since at least 1585.
did you know that 2 english companies had actually applied for and received permission from the crown to fully conolize the new world many years before the 1620 arrival of the mayflower? the only unique thing about the mayflower was that it reached new england – not odd considering the original colonization plan called for 2 major colonization efforts. one of which was to be what we call new england. the jamestown colony had been in place long before 1620.
in fact, african slaves were already in the colonies, brought over by the dutch in 1619. from the mid to late 1500’s there were already wars being fought between the conolists and the native americans. calling them pilgrims is just a term to describe the fact they were puritan separatists coming over to in fact – fully colonize the “new world.” they were prepared from the start to fight the natives if necessary, since that was already taking place, as waler raleigh had gone home to england and brought 2 native americans with him and fully described the skirmishes with the native americans.
some 15 years after the “pilgrims” landed in new england, they kicked it up a notch and wiped out an entire tripe called the pequots. the only survivors of the tribe were reportedly 2-4 people out of hundreds.
so there you have it. i suggest you invest in a history book and its you who needs to get with the program.
Kev, get with the program. Everyone here except you is referring to the Pilgrims and Native Americans of the early 1620s, not the genocide that took place later as the colonies expanded westward.
by Bostonian on Tue Nov 21, 06 7:34pm
hmmm einstein, and just what happened to all the native peoples on the east coast, from maine on down. you know, what are commonly called the "woodland indians." did they just up and move into condo's in canada? did they sell their land and retire to boca raton? did they get on ships and do a reverse move and go to england? now where oh where could they have all gotten off to? hmmm, since you seem to be such a "scholar," perhaps you know?
you kind of just made a tool out of yourself.
do you want more history? did you know that the 1621 thanksgiving was the only one for many years to come? are you aware that in fact, it was not even a day the pilgrims/colonists even acknowledged as any special day at all? that to them it was just a day that the native americans brought them food because they were dying of starvation?
looks like you're the one who learned some fake, sanitized version of thanksgiving. it's okay, i don't hold your lack of education against you.
So in 1621, John Carver, William Bradford and a couple of dozen settlers wiped out the entire population of Indians from Maine to Florida? Wow, Kev! All that in one year. That's pretty impressive.
Kev, do you just read bits and pieces of information here and there and put them all together as if they took place at one time?
what are you talking about? bostonian, you're just making yourslef look more and more ignorant. did i say it all happened in 1621? no, i did not. you however are pratteling on about the push westward --- umm, that didn't happen for a long time after the settlers landed on the east coast.
the firt major slaughter of a native american peoples, bostonian, as i pointed out, was around 1615 or so, if i recall. it was the massacre of the pequot indian tribe --- which if you could read, i pointed out above.
dude, you're just looking ridiculous now. stop the bleeding.
oh lord you really are not the brightest bulb in the pack. 1621 was the first thanksgiving. did you even read what i wrote, or just react in anger and ignorance? i think anger and ignorance. learn. go back to get your ged if you have to, but for heaven's sake bostonian, bring something of truth, value and historical fact to this ballot. good lord i'm embarassed for you.
^^ correct that. 1635 not 1615.
Actually, Kev, the "first major slaughter" of natives in the Americas took place in the lands the conquistadores were overrunning in Central and South America, over 1 century earlier. By some estimates, as many as 25 million Aztecs, Incas, etc. died in the first fifty years of contact with the Spanish. The Spanish were much worse in terms of wanting to wipe out the native culture, certainly if Hernando Cortes and Francisco Pizarro & his brothers may be used as exemplars.
No, this does not excuse English colonists' maltreatment of natives, but the Spanish were first and perhaps the most ruthless in their behavior. I just thought we should have that cleared up.
good point felix. in this instance, we're talking about what is now called the united states of america, specifically, the issue of the early settlers/pilgrims. but you are correct.
Kev, you're all over the place. Try to settle down and focus on the subject. We're not talking about Jamestown or the wild west or the Canadian colonies in the late 1500s or the African slaves brought over by the Dutch in 1619. We're talking about the first Thanksgiving feast in Plymouth. That's all. Can you handle that or will your twisted arrogance get in the way, A-hole?
Personal question: Are you dyslexic? If so, I'm sorry about your disability. If not, I suggest you invest in a dictionary. And by the way, do you know what a capital letter is? You're such a dumb-ass!
^ oh, there's a brilliant reply. umm, einstein, you're the one who brought up off toipc issues--
"not the genocide that took place later as the colonies expanded westward."
by Bostonian on Tue Nov 21, 06 7:34pm
maybe if you had answered the ballot question, or at least took the time to read it all before saying "kev, what are you talking about?" you wouldn't be in this predicament now.
i'm actually not all over the place -- you are. you seem to think that this is about one particular day. as i pointed out above (again, you should learn to read), thanksgiving as we know it did not even exist on that that day in 1621 -- it came to be known at a later date as "thanksgiving." i'm on topic and you're not.
your hostility just proves to everyone that you 're not contributing anything worthwhile to this topic. don't get so worked up -- i mean how stupid you feel pointing out something so lame as not using capital letters. oooooh, you really got me there tough guy. next.
bostonian. personal question? when are you going back to get your general equivalency degree?
okay i’ll lay it out for you in simple terms. take the time to read – slowly if it helps. more importantly, absorb it bostonian.
first, let go of the word pilgrim. pilgrim is just a sub-label for colonist or settler. it makes good news to talk about the pilgrims as fleeing religious persecution – it lends credibility to the official story telling of why america was founded. but, it leaves out many historical facts. those facts are that there were settlers (colonists) coming here long before the “pilgrims” landed in plymouth. they came for commercial reasons – for profit and not to escape religious persecution.
are you even aware, bostonian, that the “pilgrims” were in fact, far from being the first settlers? are you aware of the fact that the settlements grew rapidly, as more settlers arrived from europe?
i really believe that you think the pilgrims were the first and that they were here all by there lonesome for years. there were in fact soldiers here and more arrived yearly. did you know that? are you familiar with the dutch and english trading companies that were spearheading the colonization efforts? look them up.
by the time the “pilgrims” arrived, 2 great european powers were already plotting the full colonization of the new world (speaking of the united states proper) – the dutch and the english. the fact that trading companies were bidding on and being awarded the contracts to settle (colonize) the new world should tell you that.
so in the nice stories we hear, these poor pilgrims, fleeing religious persecution, came here all peaceful and nice and had no intentions of taking over. yeah, right. of course they did. in any historical epic telling of “colonization what the history books leave out is that the governments of the colonizing powers (in this case, primarily england and the dutch) just want bodies to go to the place being colonized. i mean after all, how do you colonize an entire continent if no one moves there?
so clearly you should know that when the pilgrims arrived, they were just european bodies sent or volunteering to go and settle the new world. now what do you suppose happens to a primitive people (in europe’s eyes) when an overwhelmingly more advanced country decides it is going to “settle” that land? the colonizers knew full well what they needed to do and they in fact, did it.
let go of this notion of thanksgiving and the pilgrims because that one day is not at all the defining moment in history, nor is it of particular historical significance in the sense that the plan was already in the works and had been for at least 50 years before they arrived in 1620. we made "thanksgiving" what it is today to have a holiday and for commerical purposes.
herzog’s ballot is speaking to what we are traditionally taught about the first thanksgiving. you at least realize that, right? the historical fact is, there was no such thing as thanksgiving – none. it was not some day the pilgrims were sitting down and calling it “thanksgiving.” it just became known as that because the native americans brought food to the starving settlers (we’ll call them the pilgrims to make you feel good). we have a decision to make. is it that the settlers were aggressive killers, or that the native americans were barbaric heathens? most likely neither.
tensions escalated and the events that led to the decimation of the native american people’s unfolded accordingly. the result is pretty obvious, wouldn’t you say? the actual settlers obviously had hopes of a better life, but that does not negate that the european powers had grander plans.
next you can learn about the push westward and the arrival of germans and norweigans to help settle the west.
so the intention of the ballot is to call into question the truth and the way these historical events are taught in school.
specifically, which is the more historically accurate telling of the day we now call thanksgiving --- that means prior to, the day of, and the subsequent events that followed for the next 50 or so years.
now see me after class for extra credit – namely to wash and wax my car. there’s a good boy.
You just proved my point, Dunce. I think they have medication for ADD now. Look into it. Get some help.
really? i proved your point? lol! sure. sure i did. you like to just declare yourself right and that makes it so? the fact you're not processing this is sad. just so sad. the fact that you're falling back to petty name calling just makes you look even more the sore loser.
why not relax and not make yourself look so bad. it's a ballot. a discussion. a debate. you're getting all worked up, not even addressing anything about the ballot and turning it into a personal battle. one which i'm sorry to say, you lost.
if you actually read any of the comments in this thread, you might just be able to see that the rest of us have brought someting to the table to answer herzog's point of --
}Now I can understand wanting to teach an accurate, unbiased version of history."
try being less hostile and more open to accepting that we've all, except you, addressed the issue with actual facts. what have you done? called names and became agressive and snippy.
cheer up bud, i still like you.
hey botsonian -- they also have medications for multipl personality disorder, sociopathic tendencies and a host of other mental ailments. get them.
|
|
